It has become a widely known problem that text messaging while driving is dangerous. Recent data shows that while text messaging, a person has an impairment level twice that of a person who is legally drunk. In the US in 2008, 6,000 deaths were attributed to distraction while driving and many of these fatalities were related to text messaging. In many states it is now against the law to text message while driving. Studies show a person is 23 times more likely to crash when texting behind the wheel. As a result of these alarming statistics, governments are considering steps toward wider bans on text messaging and emailing while driving.
While banning text messaging by law is an important step towards mitigation of this problem, that alone may be insufficient. Many states have instituted hands-free laws for cell phone use, and a large percentage of the populace simply ignores these laws. While holding a cell phone to your ear reduces your ability to properly control your car, the degree of distraction afforded by text messaging or emailing while driving makes voice use of cell phones seem insignificant by comparison. Additionally, texting has become highly addictive for many people—especially younger people. This has recently been further encouraged by social networking functionalities, such that many people will compulsively persist in texting while driving regardless of the laws unless a mechanism to defeat their dangerous habit is implemented. In considering the implementation of mechanisms to defeat text messaging, a major challenge is that it is difficult to distinguish between a person driving a car or truck and a person riding in the car as a passenger or riding on public transportation. There are many positive reasons to encourage people to ride on public transportation, and it is important that steps be taken not to discourage them to do so. It is also important for similar reasons to allow people riding as passengers in a carpool situation to utilize text messaging and emails while in a moving vehicle. An effective mechanism for defeating text messaging while driving must provide individuals who habitually take public transportation or carpool with the ability to text message and email while traveling by these means. Also, to broadly enforce a ban in a shortened period of time, it is useful that any solution not require modifications to existing cell phones. The most effective short term solution would use existing cell phones and existing cellular communications hardware and be implemented solely via software at the mobile service provider. The next most effective solution would include hardware changes in the cellular infrastructure but still require no changes to cell phones. Last, easily downloaded software changes to cell phones might be acceptable under certain conditions but are not desirable.
Cell phones in use today already contain GPS location capability as part of the emergency response network. The ability to query the location of cell phone from a central location using the GPS receiver in a cell phone is useful for many purposes, and for the purposes of this invention is useful to determine both the location and the velocity of a person according to the position and speed of lateral movement of his cell phone. Position location by triangulation from multiple cell towers may be combined with GPS (AGPS or Assisted-GPS), when readings purely from a phone's GPS receiver alone are not sufficient.
Prior art inventions address the issue of allowing passengers on public transportation to text while moving by inferring that people are on such public transport by their commonality of wireless signal attributes. These solutions would require hardware changes within the service provider's infrastructure. These solutions also ignore the fact that the driver of a public transportation vehicle must be prevented from texting on his phone. Serious train and bus accidents with many lives lost have been attributed to texting by the driver/operator. Prior art inventions also do not adequately address the scenario where passengers are riding in a carpool situation as the driver would still be allowed to text unless modifications were made to both cars and cell phones. Proposed solutions to allow passengers in a car to text while moving involve some form of proximity sensor to determine that a person is not sitting in the drivers seat. Unfortunately, this requires that enhanced phones must be purchased for all such passengers and that cars be specially designed to have devices implanted at certain seat locations. Thus, this only works for new cars and trucks and also requires users to purchase new cell phones.
To implement an enforced ban on texting in a very short amount of time, it is necessary to deploy a solution that can be generally effective without requiring changes to currently deployed user phones, existing cellular hardware infrastructure, or existing vehicles. Before such a mechanism is deployed to defeat unlawful texting while driving, it may be desirable to track such illegal activity and report it to the perpetrators as warnings or in conjunction with traffic tickets. As such, a mechanism to discover and track texting while driving may be a useful interim solution. Also, it is desirable to also implement a tracking and warning mechanism without requiring changes to currently deployed user phones, existing cellular hardware infrastructure, or existing vehicles.
The texting problem mentioned above with respect to social networking is further exacerbated by the inclusion of telematics systems in new vehicles, as well as such systems being retrofitted to existing vehicles. With the addition of Telematics, the messaging problem related to social networking is expanded through in-car WiFi hotspots to all occupants of a vehicle, providing Internet connectivity and messaging through social networks such as Twitter and Facebook from a variety of mobile devices.
Some cell phone users may prefer to use a speech-to-text or text-to-speech (hereinafter: speech-text) capability in localities (cities, states, provinces, countries) where texting is illegal while driving but voice is allowed—typically requiring a hands-free capability. At the same time, if a speech-text capability is allowed, it is critical to determine that it has not been tampered with to either allow conventional manual entry of texts, or conventional viewing of textual information a user has received. Given the extremely high addiction of some people to texting, including the covert nature of manual text entry and visual text reception, it is likely that many users would seek to circumvent a speech-text capability, thereby allowing conventional texting on their phone.